Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Will there be a 'new' manufacturers race; to 'Fusion'?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 27, 2008 9:32:17 PM

According to reports around the web, Intel has been working on an integrated CPU/GPU solution. The chip, code named "Lincroft" it part of the Moorestown platform. Lincroft will initially be developed for Ultra Mobile PCs, but according to an unverified roadmap, Lincroft with its core logic unit, Silverthorne, will eventually filter its way to consumer electronics, OCLP and embedded netwok devices. I have seen no mention of forays into the DT or normal mobile markets yet, but with developement of this technology for both the ultra mobile and OCLP, the segue should be easy enough. With Intel already working on the EP80579, a highly intergrated Pentium M and working to expand its graphics interests, is it a question of 'if' or a question of 'when' will Intel attack mobile? And should they choose to attack mobile, which seemingly they will, how long might it be before they take the next step to DT? If so, AMD will find itself in yet another race.

mydigitallife
TheRegister
Engaget

July 27, 2008 9:41:00 PM

isn't AMD's version of this actually called "fusion"?
a c 126 à CPUs
July 27, 2008 10:16:09 PM

^Yup. But I have yet to see a definative date for AMDs Fusion. I know Intel has plans for a SoC using Nehalem but it will probably be targeted at the mobile market for laptops since it will allow for cheaper laptops.

As for this it would be interesting to see who gets where first and hopefully AMD is smart enough to tae thier time instead of trying to beat Intel to the market. I would prefer a well worked on product over a first version any day.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2008 12:43:31 AM

^ I think intel is doing it with sandy bridge

I hear sandy bridge blows a**... at least in desktops... with mobile it is probably going to rock but I think sandy bridge is just an integrated graphics chip into westmere
July 28, 2008 1:04:02 AM

I think the "forays into the DT or normal mobile markets" will be coming with Larrabee. Intel hinted at the possibilites at the last IDF, and hopefully will expound at either Siggraph 2008 (August 12 - 14th) or at IDF (Aug 19 - 21st).

As for AMD, I've only seen generalizations. They may well wait for Intel to spend the money on creating the market first.
July 28, 2008 2:04:10 AM

Well, Intel seems to be approaching from markets that already exist, UMPC and consumer. As far as the other markets, I think there may already be a demand in mobile (laptop) IF whatever they were to produce were to provide a cost/power savings to the consumer.
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2008 11:23:42 AM

Yeah ... Intel's graphics chips are really great little performers too.

They totally rock !!!

And their drivers historically have been so much better than either Nvidia and AMD.

I am surprised those other two companies even bother trying to compete in the graphics part of the market.

Really ... is there no end to the bull$hit ??
a c 108 à CPUs
July 28, 2008 2:08:40 PM

With the Puma mobile platform AMD has taken a significant 'architectural' step toward Fusion. How this translates in a race with Intel, who knows? Intel spends more on R&D than AMD makes each year.

It seems logical to me that the next level for Puma (1H09?) has the potential to move a graphics core on to the cpu die but I am certain that step is more difficult than we can imagine.

AMD has 'split' the cores on the die and Puma splits the core power planes. So now each element (cpu cores, IMC, HT & memory) has independent timing and power.

I'm not sure where Intel stands with the Cantiga/Montevina chipsets. Last I heard Intel will not release a Centrino2 chipset initially with Intel integrated graphics (like the mobile version of the G45).
July 28, 2008 2:30:49 PM

turpit said:
According to reports around the web, Intel has been working on an integrated CPU/GPU solution. The chip, code named "Lincroft" it part of the Moorestown platform. Lincroft will initially be developed for Ultra Mobile PCs, but according to an unverified roadmap, Lincroft with its core logic unit, Silverthorne, will eventually filter its way to consumer electronics, OCLP and embedded netwok devices. I have seen no mention of forays into the DT or normal mobile markets yet, but with developement of this technology for both the ultra mobile and OCLP, the segue should be easy enough. With Intel already working on the EP80579, a highly intergrated Pentium M and working to expand its graphics interests, is it a question of 'if' or a question of 'when' will Intel attack mobile? And should they choose to attack mobile, which seemingly they will, how long might it be before they take the next step to DT? If so, AMD will find itself in yet another race.

mydigitallife
TheRegister
Engaget

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2008/0310/kaigai02l.gif




Your sig really makes it hard to take you seriously. What are you asking? AMD is already working on Fusion for low-priced notebooks. It would probably fit right into HTPCs also. In answer to your question, everything is a race when they are two people racing.

I guess AMDs biggest challenge is the MCM packaging as the CPU is SOI and the GPU (thus far) is not. Intel's biggest challenge is making graphics faster than a retarded kid with a box of crayons.

July 28, 2008 4:51:36 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Intel's biggest challenge is making graphics faster than a retarded kid with a box of crayons.


LOL

Anyways, I always find that Intel tends to be behind AMD on a lot of technology, but then picks it up and kicks the crap out of AMD. Also, I'm pretty sure that AMD started the whole integrated CPU/GPU, or atleast I heard about it from AMD way before Intel. Either way, I'll be pretty interested on the chip layout of these things as to whether they are CPU/GPU stuck together, have say one modded core in a quad core, or something of the sort.
a c 126 à CPUs
July 28, 2008 4:55:11 PM

^There have been many iterations of a SoC from Intel. Timna is one example. And I believe that both Intel and AMD have been planing their SoC for a while and its hard to say which was first.

While it doesn't matter who was first it matters who has better implimentation of the technology.
July 28, 2008 7:08:52 PM

jimmysmitty said:
^There have been many iterations of a SoC from Intel. Timna is one example. And I believe that both Intel and AMD have been planing their SoC for a while and its hard to say which was first.

While it doesn't matter who was first it matters who has better implimentation of the technology.



You're totally wrong. If that was the case AMD would have 40% of the market right now. It depends on whether Inhell is on their period and threatening OEMs with higher chipset prices or less chipsets. Newegg has only 5 Puma systems and at least one retailer advertised a 17" Toshiba and then removed it.(www.jr.com)

I just hope that people realize they can get a Turion for a little more than a EeePC which is not even in the same league. I mean, would you rather have a 8.9" screen with less than 20GB of space or a 15" screen with close to 200GB? Some people will say "it's just for web-surfing" but how does a 1280 page look on a 8" screen?

Ehhhh, never mind.
a c 126 à CPUs
July 28, 2008 7:17:00 PM

^Um AMD did get almost 40% of the market. But then Core 2 came out and outperformed X2 and Intel can easily manufacture enough CPUs to meet demand where as AMD instead of building more fabs to help meet demand bought ATI.

AMD had major major demand when X2 was on top and charged more for it. But they were not able to meet demand and when smaller OEM companies wanted chips AMD said they had none and tried to get them with the bigger OEMs. Seriously though AMD was doing great and the IMC still keeps them at the top of the server market but desktop wise the IMC doesn't make up enough.

As for my statement, its true. A company can have something first but its who impliments it better and of course gets it out there.

I am also sure that people are unaware that you can also get a nice Intel laptop for even less. And the EeePC is a Asus thing. Nothing to do with Intel.
July 28, 2008 8:04:00 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Your sig really makes it hard to take you seriously. What are you asking? AMD is already working on Fusion for low-priced notebooks. It would probably fit right into HTPCs also. In answer to your question, everything is a race when they are two people racing.

I guess AMDs biggest challenge is the MCM packaging as the CPU is SOI and the GPU (thus far) is not. Intel's biggest challenge is making graphics faster than a retarded kid with a box of crayons.



Your historically epic 2.5 thread battle about the benefits of storing CPUs in styrofoam removed any doubt about taking you seriously a long, long time ago.


AMD cant go MCM....didnt you read AMD's "Quad Core For Dummies"....dont you know MCMs are just "glued" cores and that MCMs underperform "true" multicore dies?
a c 126 à CPUs
July 28, 2008 8:05:44 PM

^I miss you turpit. and the sig is funny. Reminds me of Total Recall.
July 29, 2008 3:56:49 AM

BaronMatrix said:

I guess AMDs biggest challenge is the MCM packaging as the CPU is SOI and the GPU (thus far) is not. Intel's biggest challenge is making graphics faster than a retarded kid with a box of crayons.


*gasp* Oh crap! BM you're so brilliant! I'm sure the engineers at AMD would appreciate you for coming up for such brilliant idea. to manufacture both CPU and GPU at the Dresden Fab, utilizing the advanced 45nm technology!!



BaronMatrix said:
You really makes it hard to take you seriously.


Corrected ;) 
a b à CPUs
July 29, 2008 8:56:56 AM

BaronMatrix said:
You're totally wrong. If that was the case AMD would have 40% of the market right now. It depends on whether Inhell is on their period and threatening OEMs with higher chipset prices or less chipsets. Newegg has only 5 Puma systems and at least one retailer advertised a 17" Toshiba and then removed it.(www.jr.com)

I just hope that people realize they can get a Turion for a little more than a EeePC which is not even in the same league. I mean, would you rather have a 8.9" screen with less than 20GB of space or a 15" screen with close to 200GB? Some people will say "it's just for web-surfing" but how does a 1280 page look on a 8" screen?

Ehhhh, never mind.


One question. Would a Turion fit inside your handbag?

Come on! Most people at my school use Ipod Touches to surf the web. How much worse can a Netbook be?

Realise this, markets have their own niches...

Also most space problems can be addressed with a HD upgrade... MSI Wind...
a b à CPUs
July 29, 2008 11:22:36 AM

Go BM !!!

Funny how now he is back your getting picked on again eh??

Funny bout that.

a c 108 à CPUs
July 29, 2008 1:37:59 PM

The Epic Failure appears to be Centrino 2 "Montevina" with G45m (following up the current 'vaporware' g45 and the less than stellar roll out of G35 last year).

Fairly underwhelming overall with no discrete graphics seen in the wild (except for AMD or nVidia). The 'Graphics Media Accelerator X4500' still can't handle HD and channel vendors are demanding an nVidia recall of faulty products.

The 'Centrino 2' logo is oddly missing. Wouldn't want that Intel brand associated with the current Epic Failure of nVidia.

Best play it safe and pair that Centrino 2 with AMD-ATI Radeon mobility graphics :p 
a c 126 à CPUs
July 29, 2008 1:48:41 PM

^I agree only because I have always found ATI based graphics much more capable than nVidia based graphics.
July 29, 2008 2:46:04 PM

Wisecracker said:
The Epic Failure appears to be Centrino 2 "Montevina" with G45m (following up the current 'vaporware' g45 and the less than stellar roll out of G35 last year).

Fairly underwhelming overall with no discrete graphics seen in the wild (except for AMD or nVidia). The 'Graphics Media Accelerator X4500' still can't handle HD and channel vendors are demanding an nVidia recall of faulty products.

The 'Centrino 2' logo is oddly missing.
Wouldn't want that Intel brand associated with the current Epic Failure of nVidia.

Best play it safe and pair that Centrino 2 with AMD-ATI Radeon mobility graphics :p 


Not sure which planet you're living on, but at the moment HP, ASUS and other major OEMs offer a full range of Centrino 2 laptops.

I'm also not sure where you heard the rumor that X4500 can't handle HD, as it has been demonstrated X4500 does have the capability to play back high definition content.
a c 126 à CPUs
July 29, 2008 3:24:55 PM

^I think he means it can't play HD content while playing HL2 and encoding a large Divx file cuz thats what people do on laptops....they do everything at once....
a c 108 à CPUs
July 29, 2008 4:19:00 PM

yomamafor1 said:
Not sure which planet you're living on, but at the moment HP, ASUS and other major OEMs offer a full range of Centrino 2 laptops.

I'm also not sure where you heard the rumor that X4500 can't handle HD, as it has been demonstrated X4500 does have the capability to play back high definition content.


X4500 does not support AVC and VC1 decode acceleration - that is left for X4500HD.

I would love to see some further links. All previews I have seen have noted low- to mid-range performance (hence my comment 'fairly underwhelming overall') and limited to no availability.
July 29, 2008 4:32:18 PM

...when Montevina platform is G45 (X4500HD) by default? I have yet to see a laptop lineup that sports G43, not to mention not yet launched G41.


As for performance,
http://www.notebookjournal.de/praxis/79/2

I wouldn't call an IGP that's almost on par with 8400M G as "fairly underwhelming overall". Sure, you can't play Crysis or Oblivion on it, but doesn't mean it can't run less demanding games like Sim 2.
a c 108 à CPUs
July 29, 2008 6:14:33 PM

yomamafor1 said:
...when Montevina platform is G45 (X4500HD) by default? I have yet to see a laptop lineup that sports G43, not to mention not yet launched G41.


As for performance,
http://www.notebookjournal.de/praxis/79/2

I wouldn't call an IGP that's almost on par with 8400M G as "fairly underwhelming overall". Sure, you can't play Crysis or Oblivion on it, but doesn't mean it can't run less demanding games like Sim 2.


I'll at least give you an 'A' for effort.

'Almost on par' with the 8400M G low-end entry-level graphics? Good one.

100% improvement over GMA x3100? Maybe for the math-challenged in cherry-picked benchies ...
a c 108 à CPUs
July 29, 2008 9:06:04 PM

yomamafor1 said:
....I would also give you an A+ for the level of ignorance.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Graphics-Media-Accel...

I really don't know who would call an IGP "fairly underwhelming overall" that's more capable than a discrete graphics card.


Your link defines the Intel GMA-x4500HD as ""Class 3"" and ranks it 78th overall .... :p 
July 29, 2008 9:12:58 PM

Your point? I've demonstrated that X4500HD is much more capable than "fairly underwhelming overall", being able to run F.E.A.R, albeit at low resolutions. What have you demonstrated?
a c 126 à CPUs
July 29, 2008 11:10:55 PM

^That he doesn't like Intel IGPs like most people?

It seems decent for what it is. A low cost solution that can play HD video and play some mid ranged games (seriously who in their right mind plays high end games on a IGP?) considering that most laptops are a business minded solution.

At the very least a laptop is used for mobile Internet/entertainment. Mainly used for school and work.
July 30, 2008 1:48:55 AM

turpit said:
Your historically epic 2.5 thread battle about the benefits of storing CPUs in styrofoam removed any doubt about taking you seriously a long, long time ago.


AMD cant go MCM....didnt you read AMD's "Quad Core For Dummies"....dont you know MCMs are just "glued" cores and that MCMs underperform "true" multicore dies?



First, the material WAS NOT Styrofoam. Should I send you the thicker stuff that surrounded my laptop? You are still stuck on an admittedly incorrect definition.

Oh and it was DUAL core for dummies. AMDs quad is native. Fusion is a dual core CPU with a PCIe tunnel and No Bridge on a package with a GPU.
July 30, 2008 1:57:19 AM

yomamafor1 said:
*gasp* Oh crap! BM you're so brilliant! I'm sure the engineers at AMD would appreciate you for coming up for such brilliant idea. to manufacture both CPU and GPU at the Dresden Fab, utilizing the advanced 45nm technology!!

http://jessenoller.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/vader-fail.jpg



Corrected ;) 



Fab 36 uses SOI wafers. TSMC uses SiGe wafers. In order to make Radeon, they need to either bring in the wafers or qualify production on SOI. It's being reported that ATi is going to 40nm with TSMC. 45nm is supposedly on optical shrink while 40nm is a physical shrink. Perhaps they can assemble it at one of their assembly plants but....they're still better than crayons.
July 30, 2008 2:03:44 AM

yomamafor1 said:
....I would also give you an A+ for the level of ignorance.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Graphics-Media-Accel...

I really don't know who would call an IGP "fairly underwhelming overall" that's more capable than a discrete graphics card.



Like you say did you actually read that? Q3 Arena? FEAR at 640x480; 7FPS at 1024? Doom3 UNPLAYABLE AT ANY RESOLUTION?

Wow, maybe I should get one of those Darth Vader

FAIL

pictures.
July 30, 2008 2:38:50 AM

So now we're supposed to play graphic intensive games on IGPs? Please take your anti-company sentiment elsewhere.

a b à CPUs
July 30, 2008 5:41:40 AM

hmm I should get one of those...

a b à CPUs
July 30, 2008 6:18:11 AM

*sigh*
July 30, 2008 8:26:30 AM

BaronMatrix said:
First, the material WAS NOT Styrofoam. Should I send you the thicker stuff that surrounded my laptop? You are still stuck on an admittedly incorrect definition.

Oh and it was DUAL core for dummies. AMDs quad is native. Fusion is a dual core CPU with a PCIe tunnel and No Bridge on a package with a GPU.


O Rly? Shall I necro thread a little. As always, you have a short memory. While those threads were 'lost' (as were so many others during the last site update) I just happen to know where there are copies stored.

The material WAS styrofoam, it was incorrect from every aspect from the initial post to the last dying gasp for legitimacy, and it was only one of many epic threads which firmly removed any doubt about taking you seriously.

It was most certainly was not "DAUL" cores for dummies:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://img.tomshardware.com/us/2006/09/25/amd_mc_processing.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-idf-2006,3516.html&h=269&w=300&sz=62&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=9BWPJLKxgcRJRM:&tbnh=104&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3Damd%2Bquad%2Bcore%2Bfor%2Bdummies%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG



While the name was Multicore, AMDs intent was to belittle the MCM. As intel did not have a dual core MCM, but a quad core MCM based on 2 native dual cores, the implication was clearly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, uncontestably "quad" cores, NOT dual.
July 30, 2008 10:01:49 AM

yomamafor1 said:
So now we're supposed to play graphic intensive games on IGPs? Please take your anti-company sentiment elsewhere.


Intel IGPs can handle solitaire...

With an overclock they might be able to take on minesweeper.




But anything above that and you are running at minimal settings. No one can deny intel IGPs are crap, absolute utter crap, and they are creamed by both Nvidia and AMD equivalent offerings.
a c 108 à CPUs
July 30, 2008 11:37:04 AM

Amiga500 said:
Intel IGPs can handle solitaire...

With an overclock they might be able to take on minesweeper.





But anything above that and you are running at minimal settings. No one can deny intel IGPs are crap, absolute utter crap, and they are creamed by both Nvidia and AMD equivalent offerings.


But the Intel GMA x4500 can do it with DirectX 10.0 and Shader Model 4.0 :ouch: 
July 30, 2008 1:17:04 PM

Amiga500 said:
Intel IGPs can handle solitaire...

With an overclock they might be able to take on minesweeper.




But anything above that and you are running at minimal settings. No one can deny intel IGPs are crap, absolute utter crap, and they are creamed by both Nvidia and AMD equivalent offerings.


Untrue. Yeah, I don't think they are great in any way, but I can play Warcraft 3 at 1280x1024 - everything on HIGH - with: Pentium D 820 2.8 GHZ, 2 GB DDR2 667, Intel 945G. : P The average FPS is something around 29.2.
a c 126 à CPUs
July 30, 2008 1:19:56 PM

turpit said:
O Rly? Shall I necro thread a little. As always, you have a short memory. While those threads were 'lost' (as were so many others during the last site update) I just happen to know where there are copies stored.

The material WAS styrofoam, it was incorrect from every aspect from the initial post to the last dying gasp for legitimacy, and it was only one of many epic threads which firmly removed any doubt about taking you seriously.

It was most certainly was not "DAUL" cores for dummies:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://img.tomshardware.com/us/2006/09/25/amd_mc_processing.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-idf-2006,3516.html&h=269&w=300&sz=62&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=9BWPJLKxgcRJRM:&tbnh=104&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3Damd%2Bquad%2Bcore%2Bfor%2Bdummies%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG

http://img.tomshardware.com/us/2006/09/25/amd_mc_processing.jpg

While the name was Multicore, AMDs intent was to belittle the MCM. As intel did not have a dual core MCM, but a quad core MCM based on 2 native dual cores, the implication was clearly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, uncontestably "quad" cores, NOT dual.


Isn't AMD going to go MCM with their 12 core? Will be interesting really. Talking trash about something, that works and beats your offering then using the same thing later on. Ahh I love it.

I still think its funny. Gaming on a laptop has never truly been gaming. Heck back when the X800 and GF6 were out for the mobile it was still only able to play Doom 3 at 800x600 with playable framerates. While I am sure that has improved I am still going to doubt it will play current gen games decently.

Meh. I still want to see Larrabee and the resulting IGPs performance in games but waiting is hard. And Baron using Intels IGPs as a reason it will suck is hilarious.

Let the good times roll.
July 30, 2008 3:03:50 PM

dattimr said:
Untrue. Yeah, I don't think they are great in any way, but I can play Warcraft 3 at 1280x1024 - everything on HIGH - with: Pentium D 820 2.8 GHZ, 2 GB DDR2 667, Intel 945G. : P The average FPS is something around 29.2.


You might not thank me for saying this... :D 

But that is a 6 year old game!





I have to say I do have some doubts your hitting near 30 fps!!! (at least consistently)


Fella I used to live with had a P4 with 945G, and the damn thing would chug when faced with C&C Generals and alot of units on the screen (not that I minded too much - usually mean I'd beat him in the game!) Eventually got a radeon 9800 on the cheap and that did the trick.
July 30, 2008 6:20:47 PM

Amiga500 said:
You might not thank me for saying this... :D 

But that is a 6 year old game!



http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-780g/ep2.gif

I have to say I do have some doubts your hitting near 30 fps!!! (at least consistently)


Fella I used to live with had a P4 with 945G, and the damn thing would chug when faced with C&C Generals and alot of units on the screen (not that I minded too much - usually mean I'd beat him in the game!) Eventually got a radeon 9800 on the cheap and that did the trick.


Hahaha! I thank you for saying this - especially since you have gone through the trouble of posting the graph! : P

The oldies rock my world! ;D

Anyway, I really hit near 30 FPS most of the time, however, as you stated, I have some problems when there are 20-30 units on the screen. Sometimes it goes down as much as 12 FPS - for 2 or 3 seconds - or goes up as much as 38-41. Probably the game is still more CPU dependant at this resolution and I know it was optimized to work better with multi-core CPUs in the latest patch. I tried using a GeForce 7200GS (IGP in disguise, I know : P) and it didn't improve anything.

Anyway, I would love to test it with the upcoming 790GX. =D
a c 126 à CPUs
July 30, 2008 6:51:43 PM

^I for one can believe he can hit 30FPS in Warcraft 3. HL2 EP 2 has a lot more advanced features and to tell you the truth Amiga, Source is very CPU based.

BTW what CPUs were used for the AMD and for the Intel setup? Because at 800x600 the CPU is a big limiter and HL2 EP2 has a lot of enhancements to the Physics/Particle engines....
a c 108 à CPUs
July 30, 2008 6:58:31 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Fab 36 uses SOI wafers. TSMC uses SiGe wafers. In order to make Radeon, they need to either bring in the wafers or qualify production on SOI. It's being reported that ATi is going to 40nm with TSMC. 45nm is supposedly on optical shrink while 40nm is a physical shrink. Perhaps they can assemble it at one of their assembly plants but....they're still better than crayons.


I would think 45-40nm with TSMC would be the point where they could jump to SOI on the graphics side.

Theo may have nailed this one ...
AMD Outsources To TSMC For CPUs
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/cpu-phenom-amd,5370.ht...
May 14, 2008

Be interesting to see how AMD enforces 'proprietary' tech with TSMC.
July 30, 2008 7:53:41 PM

Amiga500 said:
Intel IGPs can handle solitaire...

With an overclock they might be able to take on minesweeper.




But anything above that and you are running at minimal settings. No one can deny intel IGPs are crap, absolute utter crap, and they are creamed by both Nvidia and AMD equivalent offerings.


Again, biased opinions based on no actual facts.
a c 108 à CPUs
July 30, 2008 8:06:42 PM

yomamafor1 said:
Again, biased opinions based on no actual facts.

Anand good enough for you?
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx...

Quote:
we can only conclude about Centrino 2 what we know on paper. It shouldn't really be any faster, clock-for-clock, than the Santa Rosa Refresh based Centrino notebooks. Initial results we've seen from OEMs that have gotten systems to work shows that performance and battery life of their new Centrino 2 systems aren't any different than their previous Santa Rosa Refresh systems. Compared to earlier Santa Rosa and Napa machines, the upgrade should be worth it, but if you just bought a notebook - don't be fooled by the 2, it's not time to upgrade.


Quote:
what we need from Intel or a capable OEM to truly determine the worth of Centrino 2:

- A fully working, fully optimized Centrino 2 notebook
- A similarly configured Santa Rosa Refresh notebook for comparison
- The ability to switch between WiFi Link 5300 and 5100 cards to truly determine their tangible value
- A Centrino 2 system with discrete graphics to truly evaluate how the switch between IGP and discrete graphics works
- Working GM45 drivers with full video decode support and proper application support for it as well. Many of these notebooks will be shipping with Blu-ray drives and in the interest of actually being able to watch a Blu-ray movie on a battery, hardware decode acceleration needs to work.

July 30, 2008 9:38:58 PM

How does what you posted prove that GM45 is lacking high definition content playback capability? How does that prove X4500HD is lacking in performance?

I posted earlier, with real benchmarks, from notebookcheck:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Graphics-Media-Accel...

Not only X4500HD outperformed the entry level discrete graphic cards from last year, its almost on par with Nvidia's last generation mid-level discrete graphic card (GeForce Go 7400).

Is it strong by any means? Absolutely not. Is it competitive against AMD's 780G? Not at all. What X4500HD signify, however, is that Intel is already making significant improvement on its IGP technology.

On the other hand, ATi's IGP doesn't seem to improve that much at all, if 3DMark06 is of any indication. The difference between 690G (HD2400 core) and 780G (HD3200) is a measly 300 points.
a b à CPUs
July 31, 2008 7:53:13 AM

690G is X700 based... 780G is HD 3450 based

Huge difference
!